hey. i just wanted to get a feel for what you all thought of this situation. my rig was in the trunk of my car for a few days while moving, and i assume temperatures got pretty warm in the trunk (outside was 80's). the main was pulled from the container, but the reserve was packed. any of you think a repack on the reserve might be warranted in this case? could the high temps cause a malfunction somehow? thanks!

This is exactly one of the reasons why I sent a letter of dissention to the FAA regarding the consideration of a 180 day pack cycle.

I don't see how extending it 2 months would prevent this type of thing. Its not going to make people think any harder before doing something like that.

We currently have a 120 day cycle and the OP put his rig in the trunk.

Is it just that you think a longer cycle might cause things like that to go unnoticed for a longer period of time before being caught by a rigger?

I believe that unfairly penalizes everyone.

I think people should be more careful with their gear and not depend 100% on riggers to catch potential problems.

If the guy with the melted cables regularly inspected his own gear and made sure that all the cables could move freely (as we are supposed to do) then the length of the repack cycle wouldnt make any difference

I dont have to decide. This issue has nothing to do with whatever monetary value I would place on my life.

Repack fee's are not the issue either.

I dont ever leave my rig unattended in a potentially damaging environment and I routinely check my gear as the manufacturer suggests including manipulating the 3 rings to prevent them taking a set, and checking the cables to make sure they move freely.

The cable check I do every time I go to the DZ.

Extending the repack cycle would not pose any appreciable additional risk to my life.

Get it repacked. Peace of mind is worth it. You don't want to be worrying about this a 1500 feet under a "I might be able to land it" canopy.

Regarding the 120--> 180 day repack cycle, I don't see where this has any bearing on it. Anyone is free to make their personal repack cycle anything they want, as long as it doesn't exceed the FAA mandate.

> I can't imagine 80F causing a problem with the materials a rig is made from . . .

That's the outdoor temps. From our testing, insides of trunks can easily reach 180F when the vehicle is parked in the sun on a hot day - even if it's much cooler outside. I'd actually be more worried about cypres batteries than anything else.

Bill: Depends on where he is on the timeline. If he got it repacked last week and it went unnoticed and there were a cutaway - perhaps nothing If it was due this weekend on a 120 day cycle and went unnoticed - it would. If it was due this weekend on a 120 day cycle and that cycle were extended to 180 days, then it would go unnoticed for another 60 days...

I local jumper who worked construction and jumped almost every weeknight left his rig in the trunk. When I got it back for I&R it took 35 lb's to pull the free bag off the stacked reserve AFTER the locking stows were out. The coated interior of the bag was stuck to the canopy stack. IF this had been used at terminal probably would have been fine. IF it was a cutaway and low speed deployment it certainly would have delayed deployment.

BUT this was essentially an entire summer in the trunk, but not more than 180 days.

A few days I wouldn't worry. But that's me. Certainly repack for piece of mind if you feel it's necessary.

They absolutely can cause a malfunction. I know of a guy that had a mal on his main and when he went to cutaway he couldn't. The cables had melted in place in the metal housing.

Holy shit! I've heard of reserves coming out stuck to themselves like a brick, and I've heard rumors of spectra coating material melting together, but that's a new one on me. Any more detail on cirumstances? Was this Arizona-type heat? left for a couple days, or a couple months, or all the time between weekends? Trunk, or direct sunlight (like back seat)?

I would NEVER leave a rig in the trunk, and I've given the speech about why other shouldn't to more than one person... this would add to the ammo.

Correct. If he did it on the first day after the repack, it would spend 99%+ of its time in its post-overheated state - no matter how long the repack cycle was. To catch those we'd have to repack every day.

If he did it on the last day before the repack, it would spend less than 1% of its time in that state - no matter how long the repack cycle is. So in that case it doesn't matter how long the repack cycle is; it could be 360 days and you wouldn't have any more risk.

If he did it halfway through the cycle, you'd spend 33% more time with the rig in that state. And again, that's true whether the new cycle is 180 days, 360 days or 10 years.

The conclusion I draw from all this is that you shouldn't leave your rig in the trunk, and that more frequent inspections won't catch problems if you do (unless you do them every day.)

feel free to get yours repacked every 120 days, or even less if you want... but don't spoil our fun

You're welcome to contradict my essay to the FAA. But I hope you do better than, "cost," "I support the 180 day cycle" without any reason as to why, or just address it as a reserve repack without mention of the harness inspection. I have been known to reverse my position when adequately educated or by a stronger argument. So far, that hasn't happened.

You'll understand if I address each of these individually. I read of each of these arguments prior to forming my _opinion_ and the letter.

Quote:

It results in less wear on gear, meaning that a given rig/reserve combination will be safe to jump for a longer time

We still have rigs & reserves from the 70's that were under a shorter inspection cycle. In fact, we have rigs & reserves that have been around so long that some riggers refuse to inspect & repack anything over 20 years old.

Quote:

Countries that have a 180 day repack cycle have seen no significant problems with it

I read the list. I hate to go all Kallend on you, but there's more countries on the list that I think are great examples not to emulate. For me, "Because they do it..." is a reference; not a reason. And, if we're going to do it _like_ they do... some of the countries on the list don't require the same standard of certification to pack the reserves, nor even a seal.

Quote:

Manufacturers have left reserves packed for several years and drop-tested them with no problems

Again, it's not about _just_ the reserve repack, but the system as a whole - and on that note: see below.

Quote:

No inspection cycle can catch gross neglect of gear;

Quote:

a reserve will mildew in a month if left wet

Quote:

Manufacturers generally know more about their gear than you or I, and most are in favor of the 180 day cycle (PD actually recommends a 360 day cycle in the absence of other rules).

In my dissention, I also refer to the number of field riggers that have found issues in the field, which have resulted in manufacturer testing and Service Bulletins.

Bill, you know that I respect your opinion in many areas and as of my letter to the FAA did not see one from you. I ask you as an engineer and probably fellow in the science of Quality Management; What does it really hurt to leave the 120 day inspection cycle? Are we to consider it the as just an inspection cycle or view it as preventative maintenance? I also ask, if it saves one life; is it worth it to leave it at 120 days? Conversely, which is more likely to save one life; 120 or 180 days? IMO this is about the extra $50.00 per annum, which every DZ with numerous rigs would find advantageous as would the average _on the bandwagon_ skydiver. I look forward to reviewing your letter to the FAA.

EDIT: I encourage any/everyone to write their papers with compelling enough arguments, evidence, information... I can still add an addendum to the list reversing my position. I've been thinking about this for awhile - and it's going to take more than cheerleading "I support the 180 day cycle."

>We still have rigs & reserves from the 70's that were under a shorter >inspection cycle.

Right - these are the ones that haven't been jumped (and repacked) very often. As you know, most of the wear on a reserve comes from repacking it.

> but there's more countries on the list that I think are great examples not to emulate.

That's fine; I'm not suggesting emulating them. They are, however, good data points, and their experience shows that repacking reserves every 180 days does not add significant risk to the repack cycle. That's essentially a way of testing the idea without risking any of "our" jumpers.

>I ask you as an engineer and probably fellow in the science of Quality >Management; What does it really hurt to leave the 120 day inspection >cycle?

What does it harm? Literally, the canopy. The less repacking, the better when it comes to canopy life

I will, however, agree that that is a minor concern, and overall it doesn't do too much harm. Heck, if we had stuck with the old 90 day repack cycle, that wouldn't have harmed anything either - and would arguably "save more lives" if people were landing their rigs in the water and not dealing with that problem.

But I am of the opinion that we should not require maintenance other than the minimum required of a reasonably maintained rig, and that the gear manufacturers should decide what that minimum maintenance is. People should still (and do) have the right to have their gear maintained more often if they choose.

>Are we to consider it the as just an inspection cycle or view it as >preventative maintenance? I also ask, if it saves one life; is it worth it >to leave it at 120 days?

Well, you could argue that keeping it at 120 days risks lives as well. If a jumper is jumping a very old Swift, and has to repack it 33% more often, the odds of it not landing him safely (or survivably) go up the more often it is repacked. So a jumper who jumps this rig under a 180 day repack cycle will arguably safer years later than a jumper who jumps the same rig under a 120 day cycle (assuming it's well cared for otherwise.)

But I don't think that's a serious issue, any more than catching stuff in that extra 60 days is a serious issue.

>Conversely, which is more likely to save one life; 120 or 180 days? IMO >this is about the extra $50.00 per annum . . . .

Perhaps. It's not an issue for me, but it may be for other people, although the savings may end up being wiped out if repack costs go up. I would also suggest that it's wear on their canopy; that carries a monetary cost as well. (on the order of $20-$30 a pack job.)

Think about this...by adding 60 more days to the repack cycle, jumpers increase the risk (by 50%) that their rigger is in fact human and has made an error in repacking their reserve. Regardless of training and care taken in repacking, riggers will forever make mistakes. If you only jump 2 times a week, by using a 180 day repack cycle, you have just given yourself 8 more opportunities to find out that your rigger is human and has made a mistake, possibly at the price of your life. If I am renting a rig, it is a little scary to know that the dropzone is knowingly adding more risk to an already risky sport.

Think about this...by adding 60 more days to the repack cycle, jumpers increase the risk (by 50%) that their rigger is in fact human and has made an error in repacking their reserve. Regardless of training and care taken in repacking, riggers will forever make mistakes. If you only jump 2 times a week, by using a 180 day repack cycle, you have just given yourself 8 more opportunities to find out that your rigger is human and has made a mistake, possibly at the price of your life. If I am renting a rig, it is a little scary to know that the dropzone is knowingly adding more risk to an already risky sport.

There are some good reasons to oppose a 180-day repack cycle, but this isn't one of them. The likelihood that any particular pack job has an error does not change regardless of cycle length. The good pack jobs will last 50% longer, too.